[Pipe support is] different than, E.G, tagging or replaygain, IMO, because these features need to be supported everywhere that format is supported. No use if foobar supports replaygain with Monkey's Audio and Shorten. All other tools won't support it. With pipes, one implementation is enough.

Which is the best lossless codec?

In case it wasn't clear, my earlier questions were rhetorical. Replaygain support depends on the way in which a player chooses to retrieve the metadata. While this is often achieved through tagging, this doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

Apple has chosen their own proprietary method of loudness equalization, though it has been demonstrated that this can be manipulated to accept 3rd-party gain adjustments. Microsoft (AFAIK) doesn't employ loudness equalization in their media player. These two are really the only exceptions and unless it is known that ASF absolutely cannot handle replaygain information, this issue of replaygain compatibility falls squarely on the two respective media players, not the formats themselves.

Last Edit: 2015-02-18 20:06:09 by greynol

Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Which is the best lossless codec?

ALAC pros: "Open source (encoding and decoding via FFmpeg and CUETools, decoding only via a standalone decoder)". Reference open source codec isn't even mentioned, as well as refalac program that is based on its code.

Which is the best lossless codec?

AVI! IIRC, AVI container doesn't support VBR audio very well.So I tried. Yes, ffmpeg managed to remux a 20MB FLAC file into a 183MB AVI. Of course, this is much larger than 16bit uncompressed PCM stored in AVI. This is insane, and I don't think any use of it. Is it really worth mentioning?

Which is the best lossless codec?

So I tried. Yes, ffmpeg managed to remux a 20MB FLAC file into a 183MB AVI. Of course, this is much larger than 16bit uncompressed PCM stored in AVI. This is insane, and I don't think any use of it. Is it really worth mentioning?

I read in the VLC changelog that VLC supported playing it, so I added it quite a while ago. I didn't know it was that useless. It should indeed probably be removed then.

Re: Which is the best lossless codec?

Some years passed, and TTA still has the password under "pros" AND under "other". And "Ultra low latency" with no other documentation than the dev explaining what measures were taken. (I mean, shouldn't one have measured that it actually accomplishes it?)

A few things generally: the wiki highlights some features that are common among all except the obsolete/oddball ones. Like tagging. Container support is shared by most, and there is more that fits Matroska now than in old days. I'd say that *total* lack of containerfriendliness is a con. Meanwhile, in Apple-land, there is this thing called .caf. As much as I frown upon Apple's lock-in strategies, is that worth mentioning?

Some codec specific questions follow:

* ALAC. Tagging support? "QT"? What is the difference between that and other MP4 atoms ... ?Speaking of which: WavPack and OFR "cons" include "More than one tagging method allowed (ambiguity possible)". Now look at https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,111855.0.html ... "Fits in the MP4 container". And Matroska. And .caf.

* FLAC."developed by Josh Coalson". Still? Shouldn't there be an "initially"?

* Monkey"Simple and user friendly. Official GUI provided." Well there are others that have front-ends too?Under Cons: I'd say that it is a "Con" that it cannot be used in any container around.

* TAKStill no mention of the open-source third-party decoder ... after six years.

* TTA, then. That does not look very tidy. The so-called "pros": "Average compression". Yeah, could have been worse ... but a pro?"Symmetric algorithm". Why is that a pro?"Ultra low latency". Undocumented, isn't it?"Password protection" was put under "Other", but is still under "pros".

Again, WavPack and OFR "cons" include "More than one tagging method allowed (ambiguity possible)". TTA has at least the same tagging methods. Is it proofed against that ambiguity? It is full green in the table on top too.

* WavPack."Accept audio files bigger than 4GB". Is it alone about that?(DSD is under "other". Compared to what is under "pros" for other formats ...)

* WMALHardware support: are those devices still around? If they are not, then what? (WMAL cons: "Not much hardware support left, except for those thirteen Windows Phone customers who are left"? :-o)And, is the ffmpeg open-source decoder really working as of now? In old days, it had severe limitations.

At least the ticket was closed a couple of years ago.(Which means that it is not *that* urgent to convert over those files out of fear of waking up to a Win10 update where WMAL is Zune'd forever. Well the chief reason why I am not worried over that, is that I don't have any such files.)

Re: Which is the best lossless codec?

I would like to edit Lossless comparison wiki page and add info about limitation of multichannel support of encoders (maximum channels allowed and support for waveformatextensible). Not in table of course. Also, along the way, to make separated lines "support for multichannel" and support for "high resolutions" for all encoders where it is mentioned.Also, i think it would be useful to add even more precise info about multichannel support for FLAC: undocumented option --channel-map=none is needed to encode some configurations (e.g. 4.1). Is anyone against?

Re: Which is the best lossless codec?

I would like to edit Lossless comparison wiki page and add info about limitation of multichannel support of encoders (maximum channels allowed and support for waveformatextensible)[...]Also, along the way, to make separated lines "support for multichannel" and support for "high resolutions" for all encoders where it is mentioned.

So that entries that now say "Supports multichannel audio and high resolutions" could say in two lines"Supports multichannel audio (up to [xx channels]) Supports high resolutions (up to [yy/zz])"? No objection here. (I don't have the knowledge to say anything about the undocumented FLAC issue though.)

Why not? The cell could say "yes, 6" or whatever. If we agree that "--channel-map=none" is essential enough to mention, it could go in a footnote. Then we should decide what it takes for dark green, but ... ?

I had a few other thoughts last year (on this page), dunno about consensus ... anyone?For example, should the F footnote apply to WMAL too? (Which again I think we should consider relegating to abandonware ...)

But furthermore:

The tagging cells: WavPack and OptimFrog say ID3 or APEv2. TTA says ID3v1/2 or APEv2. Is there any difference here?(Also, do these "options" reflect defaults or ...? If ID3 is rarely found, then it could be better to write "APEv2" with a footnote that ID3vsomething is also supported.)

Under each format, as "pros" is listed "Tagging support". But all the popular formats have tagging, and as of today I don't think it qualifies as a "pro" - rather anything without it is "obsolete" (sorry, Shorten - your time is up).

TTA has seen some controversy here (not all resolved), but here is something that I think at least should be mentioned as "Other": the developers offer plug-ins for several players. But before adding that: who else does?

WavPack: I'd say that the "Ability to create self extracting files for Win32 platform" is an "Other", being special needs.

WavPack has Embedded CUE support listed as "other" while TTA has it as "pro". But how to improve it? My view: Proper cue sheet support (WV) is a pro, but limited (FLAC) is an "other".

I'd say checksum is a "pro", not an "Other". (In the sense that I think no checksum is a severe "con".)

Hybrid/lossy mode, is that a pro in an article about lossless audio? Or should it be relegated to "Other"?

MPEG-4 ALS: "has been as a ISO standard and there is a reference encoder/decoder, but like TTA, it does not have features that make it stand out from other codecs, nor backing by a large organisation, so it hasn't much software and no hardware support."I don't see why the comparison to TTA is much in place, and it is formally "backed" by both MPEG and ISO - but hardly actively supported.

Re: Which is the best lossless codec?

There are two ways to embed cuesheet into a FLAC file:a) via CUESHEET block (limited, almost useless) b) via CUESHEET tag (proper cuesheet support)I don't know what program (except metaflac) uses the 1st way to embed cuesheet into a FLAC file. foobar2000 uses the 2nd way.

It's not pick one or the other; it's use both. You could get away with only A but that has most of the useful details removed, so B is also needed. FLAC decoding I don't see working without A. It decodes fine without B but you don't have things like track names (or any text) from the .cue.

Re: Which is the best lossless codec?

So the FLAC cuesheet "limitations" are only in the reference metaflac?

(Well ... under OFR cons and WavPack cons (but not under TTA, the dev considers it a pro ...), I find "More than one tagging method allowed (ambiguity possible)" And that is what messes up the FLAC cuesheet management?)